EDITORIAL: Women’s Marchers protest … women?

Jan. 25--THE various "Women's March" protests held around the country over the weekend were impressive in one sense. Millions collectively turned out.

But the marches were also notable for their lack of a coherent theme -- marchers' grievances were a scattershot list of boilerplate liberal stances -- and for protesting things yet to occur and that may never occur.

Most of all, the marchers' messages were as much an indirect assault on millions of women as on any patriarchal ruling class. Despite suggestions to the contrary, many women voted for Donald Trump.

According to exit polls, Trump received the support of 41 percent of female voters nationally, while Hillary Clinton received 54 percent. Given that more than 137 million votes were cast in 2016, that means more than 29 million women voted for Trump. That figure is equal to the total combined populations of as many as 19 states.

As analysts at fivethirtyeight.com noted, Trump carried the votes of white women nationwide. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan, FiveThirtyEight writer Clare Malone suggested Trump's strength among "voters who don't have a college degree, including women," contributed to his Electoral College victory. Exit polls indicate Trump won the support of more than 60 percent of white women without college degrees.

In Oklahoma, Trump received more than 65 percent of the vote while Clinton received less than 29 percent. A margin of victory that large isn't possible without significant female support for the winning candidate. Notably, when SoonerPoll.com surveyed Oklahoma voters in late October and found Trump had a 30-point lead, nearly 55 percent of respondents were women.

Does this mean millions of women, in Oklahoma and elsewhere, are "anti-woman"? Only as defined by the organizers of the recent protest marches.

To cite just one example, protesters often denounced opposition to abortion. Yet many women don't support abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason.

A Marist poll commissioned last year by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, found 63 percent of women oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, 77 percent of women believe abortion clinics should be held to the same medical standards as other outpatient surgery centers, and 71 percent of women believe doctors who perform abortions should be required to have hospital admitting privileges.

Are those strong majorities of women "anti-woman"? Of course not.

Thus, the major takeaway of the recent protests is not that all women are unequivocally opposed to a Trump administration.

In 2004, Thomas Frank published "What's the Matter with Kansas," arguing middle-class voters often vote against self-interest by supporting Republicans over Democrats. The condescension embodied in that argument -- "you people don't know what's good for you" -- is duplicated in the marches' implicit message regarding women who voted for Trump rather than Clinton.

The "Women's March" events may signal an increased level of activism among a segment of voters, and therefore shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant. But it shouldn't go unnoticed that the protests are also an attack on and condemnation of the independent voices of many, many female voters.

___

(c)2017 The Oklahoman

Visit The Oklahoman at www.newsok.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.